Standard_8

Physical Resources
STANDARD 8 – PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Introduction
South Puget Sound Community College’s physical resources play a key role in helping the College achieve its mission of “engaging our community in learning … for life”. This engagement in learning begins at our front door. What does our entrance say about engaging people in learning? This engagement entails how our learners are able to safely navigate our grounds and facilities. This engagement involves having buildings that are accessible, adequately sized for learning and well maintained for comfort, safety and efficiency. This engagement is in every piece of equipment that either directly supports classroom learning or enables support people to play their role in engaging the learner. Through the College’s master planning process, collaborative approach to resource allocation, and a decision making process based on data, the 104 acre Mottman Road campus comprised of 20 buildings and the 21,000 square feet of leased space at the Marvin Road campus provides an environment that engages students in learning.

8.A INSTRUCTIONAL AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
Sufficient physical resources, particularly instructional facilities, are designed, maintained, and managed (at both on- and off-campus sites) to achieve the institution’s mission and goals.
Because of increasing enrollments, competitive project requests and adequacy of State funds for capital projects, the College has been able to add significant new instructional and student support facilities on an every-two-year cycle since the College’s 2000 accreditation report.

Building 27, The Student Union building, dedicated in 2001, contains The Office of Student Life, Campus Bookstore, Cafeteria, Percival Dining Room, Office of Diversity and Equity, Staff Lounge, TV Room, Computer Room for Social Networking, Wireless Internet, Stage and Common Area are housed in this building.

Building 34a, Technical Education Addition, dedicated in 2001, houses the following instructional classes; Dental Assisting, Nursing, Accounting, Business Communications, Computer Information Systems and Paralegal. Faculty offices also make up a good portion of this wing, 35 rooms are dedicated to offices.
Building 20, Family Education and Childcare Center, dedicated 2004, on the north east of campus houses the Early Childhood Education instructional program, general education classrooms, provides high-quality, low-cost daytime childcare for staff, students and the public. It also houses faculty offices.

Building 21, Kenneth J. Minnaert Center for the Arts, dedicated in 2005, is South Puget Sound Community College's signature building. It is the physical symbol of the college's two-decade evolution into a comprehensive community college. The classrooms, labs and practice rooms provide much-needed facilities for Humanities and Communication Division staff, faculty and students.

The Center's 500-seat Main Stage theatre and Black Box theatre provide home stages for the college's Theatre Program. Music students have classrooms for choir, instrumental music and electronic music, as well as practice rooms and a secure place to store instruments. The building houses a general art lab, a ceramics lab, a lab for drawing and printmaking and an exhibition gallery for the public to view student works.

The Minnaert Center provides an important point of contact for the college and the community. It serves as a community resource and asset, and offers an additional choice for spectators and patrons of the arts.

Building 35, Natural Sciences Complex, dedicated in 2009. The three-story complex is clustered around a storm water detention pond where the site’s water management has become an educational amenity for the Botany and Biology departments. The new Natural Sciences Building provides specialized instruction for Geology, Physics, Anatomy, Chemistry, and Microbiology. All laboratory functions are housed in one three-story wing, connected to a three story classroom and office wing by the building’s main entry, a large monumental stair and open study areas for the students. The building is LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver accreditation.

In spite of all the above new facilities, the College is still deficient in total square footage of classroom space relative to our FTEs per the state-wide formula (140 gross sq. ft./FTE).

Year	State Funded FTE's w/1.02% Growth/Year	GSF Owned + Leased including Committed Changes	SBCTC Standard of 140 GSF/FTE's	Shortage of Space (GSF)
FY2005	3212	352115	449680	(97,565)
FY2010	3691	404764	516740	(111,976)
FY2011	3777	424764	528780	(104,016)
FY2012	3865	494373	541100	(46,727)
FY2013	3955	494373	553700	(59,327)
FY2014	4047	494373	566580	(72,207)
FY2015	4142	494373	579880	(85,507)

A listing of the College’s complete building inventory on both the Mottman and Marvin Road campuses can be found in Appendix _.
The College strives to ensure that facilities are furnished adequately for work, study, and research by students, faculty, and staff.
A survey completed by 978 students yielded the following findings (complete survey in Appendix _):

A proactive approach is taken to the management, maintenance and operations of instructional facilities in order to ensure that educational programs and support services can function in a safe manner and at a high level of quality.
One approach taken to help achieve the above stated goal was to have a No-Fault Effectiveness Assessment (NFEA) of the College’s maintenance and custodial operations. This assessment was conducted by the Division of Facilities within the Department of General Administration of the State of Washington. The findings of this assessment were presented to the College in a report dated October 31, 2006. Bob D. MacKenzie, the author of the report stated that “such an effort (to undertake a NFEA) speaks highly of your willingness to conduct periodic, in-depth reviews of your quality maintenance, operations and support functions.” He also stated that the General Administration office has found a striking relationship between well-respected public organizations and requests for such assessments. The NFEA report stated the following:

• that all buildings appear to be in overall good condition
• grounds are clean and welcoming
• parking lots are in good proximity to buildings
• building entrances are well-maintained
• foyers and halls are uncluttered and floors have been recently swept/vacuumed
• main corridors were painted
• overhead lights were working properly
• furnishings and fixtures were in good condition
• there were no signs of obvious maintenance needs

The report further stated that one of the most impressive findings was the lack of student abuse of facilities. This is a sign that students are, for the most part, respectful of their learning environment, which is indicative of an effective maintenance program that inspires respect and appropriate use of facilities.

The report concluded that the buildings and facilities at the College present a very nice first impression and serve as evidence to the visiting public of good stewardship of resources.

One item that the NFEA report suggested for improvement was to partner with the state-wide Operations and Facilities Council’s initiative to provide a system-wide Computerized Maintenance Management System. The state-wide system used by colleges to track and manage campus facilities was reported to be less and less satisfactory over the past several years. Approximately 18 months ago a new system was developed and introduced. This new management system, Megamation, has many modules. The College has adopted this new system and is making use of the work-order tracking module and the preventative maintenance scheduling module.
In a survey conducted in the winter of 2009, 176 faculty and staff reported the following results:

The preventative maintenance module has assisted the College in providing higher quality service on HVAC systems, resulting in more comfortable study and work space across campus. A campus survey conducted during the winter of 2009 showed the following results:

Because there are many temperature microclimates within buildings and because there is a wide range of human comfort zones in regards to an ideal temperature, it would be virtually impossible for every person to be completely satisfied with the temperature in every space all the time.
A proactive approach is also taken to preventative maintenance of campus buildings. For example, there is a revolving carpet replacement plan, a revolving plan for washing and sealing building surfaces, and a twice-a-year schedule for cleaning roofs, gutters and downspouts. Painting occurs on an as-needed basis.
The College emphasizes safety in all operations and areas of campus. According to a winter, 2009 survey of 978 students, 93.4% reported feeling safe on campus. 81% of students surveyed that expressed an opinion were either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the lighting in parking lots. 69% of students that expressed an opinion were either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the number of emergency phones available on campus. These figures can be used as benchmarks to track changes in these areas when future surveys are conducted.
In addition to an active safety committee that meets once a month to make safety recommendations, the College uses monitors to track indoor air quality, conducts an annual hazard tree assessment, employs an in-house electrician for faster response times, requires new outdoor lighting fixtures to shine downward, which increases visibility in general while reducing light pollution, and actively clears paths, sidewalks and parking lots of debris, ice and snow.
Per the Governor’s directive, all new state buildings are required to meet a minimum level of silver certification for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). The College’s new science building is on target to be the first gold certified LEED building in the State of Washington. Some of the features included in the construction of the building that are designed to improve the health of its occupants include:

• parking discount for low-pollution emitting vehicles
• LEED certified site lighting for light pollution reduction
• Natural ventilation and solar exhaust fans
• 10 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array collector
• Radiant floor heating
• Use of construction materials with recycled content
• Roofing system with high solar reflectance
• Low VOC (volatile organic compounds in adhesives
• Increased use of day lighting
• More than 90% of occupied spaces have access to exterior views

The College’s Custodial Department has recently adopted a green cleaning policy. The policy was developed to minimize exposure to building occupants and custodial and maintenance personnel of hazardous chemicals and solutions that affect air quality and can have negative repercussions to those exposed. The majority of cleaning products currently in use are certified by the Green Seal standard GS-37 or by the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency as safe to use in the presence of humans and for the ecosystem. These products have been rigorously tested to ensure that they are “safe” and are certified as such by the above authorities. The following goals and strategies are in place:

• Conserve energy, water and reduce packaging while still providing a clean an sanitary environment
• Comply with relevant current legislation and industry standards
• Use products whose packaging is 100% recyclable or minimal in size
• Use products that are concentrated to eliminate waste
• Eliminate aerosols
• Use equipment with HEPA filtration
• Minimize burnishing waxed floors to control dust particles in the air and HVAC systems

The College strives to maintain access by physically disabled people. Old power assist doors have been identified for replacement. Few accessibility complaints have been reported by the College’s Director of Disability Support Services. Students with a disability are also given priority scheduling of classes so that they can select courses and classroom locations that are the most accessible for them. Even though the College provides the total number of handicapped parking stalls throughout campus required by the American with Disabilities Act, it has been suggested that more handicap parking stalls would be beneficial near Building 34.

An example of the College being proactive in regards to accessibility was that all bathroom doors in Building 20 were retrofitted after completion of the building with motorized doors for improved handicap accessibility.
The College leases 21,211 square feet of office and classroom space in Lacey, Washington, along with 300 on-site parking spaces. This campus is referred to as our Marvin Road Campus and our Center for Continuous Learning. There are 14 classrooms at this site. The facilities are appropriate for the programs offered, most of which are lecture and/or computer lab based. When the College decided to offer its complete Associate of Arts degree at this campus, a lecture room was converted into a science lab. This lab contains all the same equipment and features as the science labs on the Mottman Road Campus.
When the College was contracted by the Chehalis Tribe to provide training in 2008, the training facilities that were owned and operated by the Tribe met this accreditation standard. The Tribe’s Education Director had space remodeled in order to set up a computer classroom. They purchased appropriate tables/chairs and a projection system so that the professor could demonstrate as the students followed along. The space was sufficient to carry out the training. The Tribe’s conference room was used for lecture/discussion-based module. The College transported and used College-owned equipment, including 12 laptop computers, a server and a printer. The culinary module/portion of the training was conducted in one of the Tribe’s kitchens.
Perhaps the most complex physical resource challenge the College faces is the issue of parking at the Mottman Road Campus. The winter, 2009, survey of students revealed the following results.

The key phrase in this survey question is “anywhere on campus”. The expectation of most students is to be able to find a parking spot right next to the building that their class is in. This simply is not possible on our main campus. It is possible to find a parking spot somewhere on campus during each hour of the day. It just may not be right in front of the desired building/room.
Lonnie’s campus fill rate for parking data
Partially in response to this perceived parking problem the College’s Environmental and Sustainability Committee undertook a commuting survey (Appendix ___) in an effort to determine what the barriers might be for students, faculty and staff to carpool, ride the city bus and/or ride a bicycle to campus. The long-range goal, after identifying barriers to the above, is to work to reduce some of these barriers so that the Mottman campus can serve more students without having to rely on more parking spots. An added benefit to having fewer people drive to campus would be a reduction in the College’s carbon footprint.
Analysis and Appraisal: ??? Is this section necessary or do the strengths, challenges and future directions sections comprise the appraisal?
Strengths:

• The College has an effective system in place for identifying new building needs, obtaining resources and bringing the structures on-line in a timely manner
• New procedures and practices are in place for becoming a “greener” campus, both in building construction and in building and grounds maintenance.
• Students report high levels of satisfaction with classrooms and their furnishings
• Faculty and staff report high levels of satisfaction with both the response time and a quality of maintenance across campus.

Challenges:

• South Puget Sound Community College continues to lag behind standards for academic colleges in terms of square footage per state funded fulltime equivalent students (FTEs).

• Buildings at the Mottman site will require replacement and renovation into the future. The college will need to increase square footage through new construction at the Marvin Road site. The state capital funding process requires buildings be designed and constructed over a six-year time period. This creates a challenge for replacing the existing

leased space at the Hawks Prairie shopping center. That lease ends in 2015. The soonest the college can expect to have new buildings at the Marvin Road site is 2017, and that
assumes a successful bid in the capital budget request cycle in 2010. The College will need to find a solution to this puzzle over the next two years.

Future Direction/Recommendations:

• Continue to explore ways to entice people to come to campus by means other than a single person in a vehicle
• Continue to explore and implement procedures and practices that reduce the College’s carbon footprint
• Continue to seek both internal and external feedback on how facilities can be better designed, constructed and maintained.

8.B EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Equipment is sufficient in quality and amount to facilitate the achievement of educational goals and objectives of the institution.
Starting in fiscal year 2008-2009, each educational and student services department makes equipment upgrade, replacement and addition requests through the Budget Advisory Committee. This Committee was formed and the equipment allocation process was created for more wide-spread involvement in resource allocation decisions for the college. It was also designed so that instructional assessment could be more closely tied to budgetary decisions. Please see Appendix ___ for a copy of the equipment request form.
Members of the committee were selected by the president based on names forwarded to him by the President Staff. The committee was represented by various cross-sections of the campus – classified staff, faculty, exempt, students, as well as Administrative Services, Instruction, Student Services, College Relations, Human Resources, and Hawks Prairie.
The committee created a prioritized list of equipment based on scores of these criteria – budget priorities, enhances program services, and the consequences of not funding or delaying the purchase of equipment. This list was forwarded to the president who accepted the list as presented. In 2008-2009 over $600,000, which included Carl Perkins Grants, was budgeted for the purchase of equipment, mainly instructional.
The College spent almost $600,000 in fiscal year 2004-2005 and over $600,000 in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 for the purchase of equipment, mainly instructional.
A new science building was completed in the fall of 2008. At that time each department was able to submit requests for lab materials.

Money Spent on Lab Equipment by Department in 2007 – 2008 for the New Science Building
Anatomy and Physiology	$30,917.84
Biology	$72,444.27
Botany	$39,450.52
Chemistry	$70,603.12
Geology	$17,746.38
Physics	$5,754.12

Grant requests or additional funding requests through programs such as those for high demand programs and the Worker Retraining and Work First programs have resulted in additional funds for equipment purchasing.
In a survey completed by 978 students in the winter of 2009, the following levels of satisfaction with lab equipment were found:


There has also been an effort to make more computers available to students. The following chart outlines the increase in the number of computers available per building on campus.

Computers available by Building:

Building No of computers per Year
	2006	2007	2008	2009
21		?	?	70
22	30	28	43	43
27	2	1	1	1
28	?	?	?	95
32	4	4	4	0
33	23	24	25	25
34	368	427	422	430
35				28
Hawks Prairie	145	145	145	145
Off Campus	13	2	2	2
Totals	440	485	496	532

Computers/Multi-media Equipment at Marvin Road Campus

Classroom	# of Seats	Multi-media Equipment available	# of computers
100	22	Projector – multimedia (mm) Screen	21 + 1
101	16	Projector (mm) Screen	16 + 1
102	17	Projector (mm) Screen	16 + 1
103	13	Projector (mm) Screen	12 + 1
104 A	10	DVD/VHS TV- plasma flat panel	1
108	35	AV Cart DVD/VHS Projector (mm) Projector (overhead) Screen	8
109	17	Projector (mm) Screen	16 + 1
111	32	DVD/VHS – 2 Projector (overhead) Screen	1
112	25	Projector (mm) Projector (overhead) Screen Smartboard	24 + 1
117	31	Document camera DVD/VHS Lectern (mm) Projector (mm)	1
118	66	Document camera DVD/VHS Projector (mm) – 2 Projector (overhead) Screen	1
119	35	Document camera DVD/VHS Lectern (mm) Projector (mm) Projector (overhead)	1
120	33	DVD/VHS Lectern (mm) Projector (mm) Screen TV	1
121 (Science Lab)	25	Document camera DVD/VHS Projector (mm) Screen Lectern (mm)

In a survey completed during the winter of 2009, 978 students reported the following:


In a smaller survey conducted by the library, also in the winter of 2009, 54% of 216 students surveyed rated the library as “fair” or “poor” on availability of computers. There were also many written comments in the survey from 60% of the respondents that said they had to wait to use a computer in the library.
The College has made significant progress in technology advance and in expanded instructional capacity in the last few years. For example, interactive audio and video conferencing classrooms are now available on campus and used for a variety of academic such as on-line courses and administrative purposes such as teleconferences
Information Technology has installed a series of new equipment to enhance information infrastructures on campus, including increasing the speed and capacity of the college data network, standardizing hardware and software configurations for faculty and staff, upgrading the campus Intranet and adding wireless internet access options and capabilities for Student Services.
In addition, the College has replaced the current phone system with a new system that can handle the College’s increased capacity and technical needs.
The Business Office keeps track, maintains up-to-date and accurate records of all inventoried items (sample record in Appendix _). Items costing $5000 and greater are inventoried as well as those defined as “small and attractive” (cost $300 - $4999 and vulnerable to theft) items, which includes, as noted in the college “Inventory Operational Guidelines”: micro computer systems, laptop and notebook computers, other IT accessories, office equipments, DVD, VCR, TV, communication equipment, audio & video, and cameras.
Capital assets costing $5,000 or greater are tracked by physical location through the College Fixed Assets and Equipment Inventory System (F.A.E.) maintained by the Business Office.

Small and attractive assets costing $300 - $4999 are tracked by physical location through the Business Office Access database maintained by the Inventory Control Officer.

When an inventorial item is purchased, a tag number is attached to the item. The item’s tag number, model, serial number, and its location are entered into the Access database if it is small and attractive and into FAE if it is capital asset.

A physical inventory is taken every two years (during summer quarter) and is conducted throughout the College. While overall coordination for the physical inventory rests with the Inventory Control Officer, each Department Head is responsible for conducting the inventory in his or her area.

It is the responsibility of the Department Head to ensure that capital assets assigned to his or her custody are maintained and safeguard in accordance with the College policies and procedures.

As a general rule, all moveable capital assets shall remain at the physical location assigned to them within the College.

Capital assets may only be removed from the College in the course of conducting College related business (i.e. equipment used at home or on business travel) with the approval of the Department Head. Upon completion of the project, all capital assets shall be returned to the College.

Should it be necessary to move a capital asset off campus to use at a location outside the College, it is the responsibility of the Department Head to follow the appropriate procedures set by the College.

It is the responsibility of the Department Head to report any stolen or damaged property to the Inventory Control Officer as well as to the Security Department in accordance with the procedures set by the College.

The responsibility for maintaining College-owned equipment generally resides with the department using or controlling the equipment. Instructional departments employ technicians to maintain equipment in vocational, computer, and science labs. Information Tech Services and Facilities install and maintain computing and telecommunication equipment for the whole college. A Work Order process has been established to respond to technology services and support requests from the College computer users. The Library Media Center is responsible for audio-visual equipment. The Maintenance Office, together with contracted vendors when appropriate, maintains physical plant system equipment. When College employees are unable to service, maintain or repair the equipment, specialists are hired to perform the work.

Upgrading and purchasing of new equipments are included in the College annual equipment allocation process.

CIS upgrades instructional computers on a three-year rotating basis; other computers on campus are upgraded on a cascading schedule. When instructional computers are upgraded, the replaced ones are reused in other programs based on the needs of each program as assessed by CIS, administration and faculty. The second level computers that have been replaced will cascade down to the third level, and so on, until the replaced computers obsolete, and are sold as surplus.

Unexpected emergency equipment replacements are typically covered from each department budget.

At the end of an asset’s useful life, the Department Head having custodial responsibility of the asset follows the appropriate procedures for asset disposal as outlined in the College guidelines and surplus sale regulations of the Office of Financial Management and the Office of State Procurement.

Section 6.05 (Environmental Safety) in the College’s handbook outlines specific guidelines for handling hazardous waste on campus (Appendix _) .The primary users of hazardous waste on campus: facilities, biology, chemistry, health sciences, horticulture, automotive and welding all reported how they are handling hazardous waste. This information was compared to the above guidelines to see if there were any gaps in procedures. A couple of gaps were identified and corrected. For example, the MSDA sheets for all hazardous products or chemicals should be forwarded to the Security Office by the supervisor of receiving and shipping. This practice has been reconfigured so that the lead person in each area on campus that receives hazardous materials is responsible for sending the MSDA sheet to the security office.
A subcommittee was formed to review Section 6.05 of the College Handbook to recommend updates to the College President. For example, the location of the College’s chemical hygiene plan needs to be updated in the Handbook to reflect its new location in the new science building.
In addition to Section 6.05, the chemistry lab technician reported that he uses Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Disposal of Chemicals as a reference. The biology technician reported that her procedures are in the process of being updated to match the new sterilization equipment received with the new science building.

Analysis and Appraisal:???
Strengths:

• The collaborative budgetary process for purchasing equipment is in its third year and has proven to be a very effective process that contains a connection between instructional assessment and budgetary decisions
• Significant investment in equipment and technology has had positive impacts. Survey results from students, faculty and staff indicate good levels of satisfaction in these areas
• The College Foundation has been a great asset in helping raise monies for equipment that was not funded from State budgets, as evidenced by the $300,000 raised for new equipment for the new science building.
• Every staff person and faculty member has a computer to use for daily tasks, and a college-wide computer replacement program has been implemented per the Information Technology Strategic Plan
• The phone system had been upgraded to handle the College’s increased capacity and technical needs

Challenges:

• Constant changes in technology and limited funds make it a continuing challenge in that the College must acquire, maintain and repair a substantial number of “state-of-the-art” instructional equipment items in order to provide a high level of quality education

Future Directions/Recommendations:

• The College needs to continue seeking alternate equipment funding and supply sources to make up for decreasing State funding

8.C PHYSICAL RESOURCE PLANNING
Comprehensive physical resources planning occurs and is based upon the mission and goals of the institution.
The intent of the master plan is to describe a comprehensive plan for growth and development of campus facilities to support the fundamental mission of the College in a manner that is consistent and coordinated with the strategic and academic planning goals. The master plan outlines a pattern of continued renewal and development at Mottman Road concurrent with development of a new campus in Lacey to support a complementary range of programs and instructional objectives.
The College intends to apply consistent standards of development to both the Mottman and Marvin Road campuses, with allowances for circumstances related to physical site or local government jurisdiction. The goal is to establish, develop and maintain a responsive, innovative and sustainable physical environment that promotes excellence, diversity and professional and personal growth.
Mottman Road Campus Recommendations:

• Respect the forested campus setting and celebrate the experiences of Percival Creek
• Celebrate entry and arrival points to create welcoming front door experiences
• Organize new and replacement building sites around well-defined open space nodes
• Define simple way finding with clear pedestrian connections between open space nodes
• Reorganize programs in Building 22 to provide a student and community centered core of student services, library and information services that is the physical and intellectual heart of campus
• Relocate automotive and welding programs for more pedestrian-friendly uses at the campus core and provide up-to-date new instructional spaces for these programs
• Relocate shipping and receiving to new space at the perimeter of campus to improve safety and minimize pedestrian conflicts with automobiles and services vehicles.
• Redefine Crosby entry loop to reduce vehicular penetration of the campus core
• Alter the main campus access road at play fields to create a perimeter automobile loop
• Expand parking in a manner sensitive to the natural setting of the campus
• Improve infrastructure and technology pathways to provide better service and long-term flexibility

Marvin Road Campus Recommendations:

• Take advantage of the potential for dramatic views of Mt. Rainer to the southeast
• Create an identifiable presences from Marvin Road and clearly identify entry and arrival points
• Consolidate small wetlands and create a single enhanced wetland to the south that will maximize buildable site area, become a natural foreground to the campus and create a landscape feature and natural recreation area that is a community amenity
• Locate buildings in relationship to the Mt. Rainer view axis as well as in sub-groupings around defined open space nodes to create a sense of community in both short and long-term development
• Site shorter buildings to the south, taller buildings to the north
• Develop most buildings with a long, narrow footprint generally oriented along an east-west axis to maximize daylighting and natural ventilation possibilities
• Locate campus access roads to the outermost perimeter
• Consolidate parking on the north side of the campus and use integrated landscaping treatments throughout parking areas
• Use surface treatment strategies to convey stormwater to existing detention pond, such as landscape areas and rain gardens that create a visibly sustainable campus environment

According to the December, 2007, Campus Master Plan, implementation of recommendations for both campuses will be phased over a 20-50 year period, with close coordination of proposed projects and program shifts between the two sites. Because of the various constraints and site goals outlined earlier, a limited amount of unobstructed new development sites are possible on the Mottman Road Campus. The College intends to focus its next projects for new facility growth at the Marvin Road Campus, once the committed new projects at the Mottman campus are complete. The long-term master plan for the Marvin Road Campus is designed to support an eventual enrollment of approximately 3,500 FTE students. This ensures that the Mottman Road Campus continues to provide strong facilities support for its programs, significant renovation and replacement of the existing campus buildings is anticipated. A long-range implementation matrix summarizing anticipated projects grouped by campus and project type is provided (Appendix _). The projects are listed in order of planned implementation.

The College ensures that physical facilities development and major renovation planning includes plans for the acquisition of and allocation of the required capital and operating funds.
Comprehensive site analysis, collaborative campus charrettes and detailed design studies have led to the development of specific master plan recommendations for each campus. These are intended as a flexible framework for development that can accommodate shifts in funding opportunities or program emphasis over time.
Based on enrollment growth, program needs, community needs and the College vision and strategic plan, a request for resource funding, both capital as well as maintenance and operations, is submitted to the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, which in turn submits it to the legislature, the Governor, then to the Office of Financial Management.
For new facilities or major renovations the following process is followed (see Appendix for flow chart):

• New facilities/major renovations are based upon: enrollment growth, program needs and community needs and are determined in conjunction with the College’s strategic plan and vision.
• The proposed request can derive from various factions: students, faculty, staff, community members and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ).
• After submission to the President’s Staff, the proposal is reviewed and after approval, is incorporated in the master plan.
• A request for funding is presented to the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, which in turn presents the proposal to the Legislature. The proposal is reviewed by the Legislature and when approved, presented to the Governor. Upon the Governor’s approval, it is presented to the Office of Fiscal Management and the determination of the amount of funding is made and presented to the College.
• Implementation of funding commences with major stakeholders involved in the beginning phase of planning.

For minor remodels and repairs, the following process is followed:

• A Facilities Condition Survey, program request, college or student request of AHJ request initiates a request for minor remodeling or repair to present facilities.
• The request is submitted to the President’s Staff, which reviews and approves/disapproves the request.
• Upon approval, the request is submitted to the SBCTC, who submits it to the Legislature. The Legislature presents it to the Governor, who in turn presents it to the Office of Fiscal Management.
• The project is then implemented.

Pursuant to the American Disabilities Act passed in 1990, scoping and technical requirements are to be applied during the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by titles II and III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by Federal agencies.
It is mandatory to uphold these requirements in the design process, per Office of Civil Rights (OCR) standards. Inspections being performed at intervals take these standards into account. In addition to adherence to federal accessibility standards for facilities, SPSCC’s core values of diversity and accessibility provide the conceptual foundation for its focused efforts to reduce environmental barriers to learning. The college undergoes an ADA hearing prior to construction beginning. They review the entire document set for accessibility.
In regards to the development of the College’s 2007 master plan, a consultant was hired to come and evaluate the direction the College community wants to pursue. Concurrent with the development of the master plan, the College also developed new academic and strategic planning documents to establish a comprehensive planning framework for South Puget Sound Community College. A master plan committee was formed that was comprised of a cross-section of the College community. When a consensus was derived, a master plan was assembled. Judy Blinn served as the representative from the Board of Trustees for the master plan process. Once the master plan and its implementation schedule was assembled, a series of meetings was held with the Board of Trustees for their input and final approval.
A recent example that demonstrates how the College’s governing board and affected constituent groups is involved in the planning of physical resources is the planning for the remodel of Building 22 to become the new campus center. A consultant, Dr. George Copa, was hired. His New Designs for Learning approach to building design incorporated insights from research and development and professional practice; variations in organization structures and settings; imaginative ideas by current educators; and collaborations among innovative teachers, policy makers, and community representatives. Planning for the remodel of Building 22 began in January 2007. The ten-month process was conducted in several phases: physical analysis, exploration of planning alternatives, concept plan development and documentation. The planning team worked closely with College representatives throughout the process and solicited input in several multi-day campus-wide planning charrettes. Discussions were held with city staff for both Lacey and Olympia.

Analysis and Appraisal: ???

Strengths:

• The campus facility Master Plan is annually updated to respond to growth and program requirements. There are no modular/portable buildings on either campus. Newer facilities have reduced the utility consumption, reduced the backlog of deferred maintenance, and reduced the number of capital repairs.

• Planning and development of facility and site repairs, remodels and improvements are a team effort. Representatives from Instruction, Administrative Services, Student Services and the President’s Office are all involved in every phase of any projects. Operating funds are based on the number of new square footage on the campus.
• Physical plant staff and administrators are encouraged to continue their education in their field of expertise. As the buildings systems change and become more sophisticated and complex, it is important for the physical plant personnel to remain current in their field of expertise.

Challenges:

• Under state guidelines, capital funding for major projects is incremental over a three-biennium period. The extended time period from inception to move-in may cover seven years and have negative implications on the instructional programs planned for a facility. The lag time between program planning to meet market demands and the actualization of a facility to house the programs can result in loss of students, either to other colleges that offer the same programs or simply through loss of interest on the part of the students.
• One effect of budget cuts was that Capital Outlay allocations had not been adequate to maintain furnishings. Some furnishings have aged and are no longer adequate for their intended use.
• Acquiring student input on facilities planning is difficult on major multi-year projects. Students typically do not remain at SPSCC for the duration of many facilities planning and construction cycles.
• Finding sufficient financial resources to implement measures to make the college buildings and their contents more secure proves difficult in times of statewide budget constraints.
• Funding continues to be a problem for facilities, equipment, and furnishings. The lack of state-funded maintenance and operations for self funded, gifted, and/or matched facilities creates a permanent funding deficit in this area and removes incentives for creativity in securing new space. Other limitations set by the legislature on construction requests make planning for future growth difficult. Funding is generally granted based on today’s needs, which are often surpassed by the time buildings are finished. Project costs have to be estimated years before construction begins. Since these figures cannot be updated, colleges often have to reduce building size to accommodate escalating costs. In addition, the SBCTC limits new buildings to 70,000 square feet, regardless of the size or needs of the college. With these constraints, adequate funding for future growth and expansion will continue to be difficult.

Future Direction/Recommendations:

• The time from facility design to finished construction is too long. The money lost to inflation during project cycles not only costs the state in total dollars, but also costs the community college system in lost revenues. Students also lose valuable education opportunities. A revamped methodology for faster project completion is long overdue.
• Continue to maintain the college campus as a safe and accessible environment for all students to learn.

New Facilities Major Renovation Process